Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(4): 303-329, 2002

2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Printed in the Netherlands

303

Integrating Technology in Elementary Preservice Teacher

Education: Orchestrating Scientific Inquiry in Meaningful Ways
Kathleen S. Davis
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Teacher Education and Curriculum Studies Department
School of Education, Furcolo Hall, Box 33045, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003-3045, U.S.A.

Christy J. Falba
Clark County School District, 601 N. Ninth St., Rm. 20, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101, U.S.A.

Introduction
During the last two decades, there have been many efforts to increase science
learning opportunities for all students and to reform teaching and learning practices
in science classrooms (American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS), 1989; 1993; National Research Council (NRS), 1996). For example, the
National Science Education Standards (NSES) (NRC, 1996) call for science teachers
to serve as orchestrators of student inquiry. In other words, effective science teachers
provide contexts for students to think critically, explore phenomena in their
everyday lives, and solve meaningful problems. Teachers facilitate student
discourse about their ideas, investigations, and conclusions. In addition, teachers
need to make available to students appropriate technological resources with which
they can gather, evaluate, record, and analyze data and develop and broaden their
science understandings.
However, despite these reform efforts, research indicates the tendency of
teachers to minimize science instruction and the use of learning technologies1,
especially in the early grades (Weiss, l997). Relatively few teachers have sufficient
coursework preparation to meet professional teaching standards in these areas
(National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century
(NCMST), 2000; Weiss, 1997). Many educators, especially elementary teachers,
are female and have been underserved like many of their students, hence many
come to their classrooms with little experience and/or background with the content
and processes of science and technology (Weiss, 1997). Preservice teachers often
lack confidence and competence in teaching with technology. Yet, concomitantly,
demands from national and state officials, educational leaders, school district
administrators, parents, and students for improved science teaching and the
utilization of technology have increased (International Society for Technology
Education (ISTE), 2000; NCMST, 2000).
Therefore, as we consider the reform of science instruction in K-12 classrooms,
This research was supported in part by a University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV)
Planning Initiative Award. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or
recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of UNLV.

304

KATHLEEN S. DAVIS & CHRISTY J. FALBA

we must also reflect upon the content and process of science teacher education.
Importantly, teachers need to learn content, as well as pedagogy, through engagement
in learning activity that mirrors the kind of experiences that reformers hope teachers
would provide their students (Borko & Putnam, 1996; Loucks-Horsley, Hewson,
Love & Stiles, 1998; NRC, 1996). The NSES state:
Teachers of science will be the representatives of the science community
in their classrooms, and they form much of their image of science through
the science courses that they take....If that image is to reflect the nature
of science as presented in these standards, prospective and practicing
teachers must...learn science through inquiry [and have] the same
opportunities as their students ...to develop understanding. (NRC, 1996,
p. 61)
So, if technology is to be an integral part of K-12 education, technology must
become an essential part of teacher preparation programs (Thomas, 1992, p. 9).
Researchers reported in one study that 58% of the beginning teachers surveyed,
who felt prepared to integrate technology in their teaching, had at least one methods
class where the use of technology was modeled (Handler & Pigott in Willis &
Mehlinger, 1996). Some researchers argue that the integration of technology across
the teacher education curriculum is necessary in order to be effective (Willis &
Mehlinger, 1996).
Traditionally, technology has not been central to the teacher preparation
experience in most colleges of education (U.S. Congress Office of Technology
Assessment, 1995, p. 165). After an extensive review of the literature, Willis and
Mehlinger reported in 1996:
Most preservice teachers know very little about effective use of technology
in educationthe virtually universal conclusion is that teacher
education, particularly preservice, is not preparing educators to work
in a technology-enriched classroom. (p. 978)
The inadequate preparation of teachers in the use of technology continues
(NCMST, 2000; Pederson & Yerrick, 2000). As we entered the new millennium, the
National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century
reported:
Despite the dramatic transformations throughout our society over the
last half-century, teaching methods inscience classes have remained
virtually unchanged. Classroom practice has still hardly begun to
capitalize on the many dimensions of the learning process. (p. 20)
Based on recent examinations of the nations science classrooms, the
Commission has called for high-quality teaching and support for teachers in the
forms of professional development and the effective use of technology (p. 22).

ORCHESTRATING SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

305

The demand to integrate technology in preservice education programs has

created a situation in which many teacher educators need training and support in
the use of new methods and new media (Carr, Novak, & Berger, 1992; Pederson &
Yerrick, 2000). Professional development for college faculty is unique in that further
education beyond the doctoral degree traditionally has been up to the individual,
and during undergraduate or graduate work most college faculty have not been
trained to use technology, nor have they seen it modeled (Willis & Mehlinger,
1996). Furthermore, communication between teacher education content specialists
and technology specialists is frequently lacking when planning courses and
experiences for students in teacher preparation programs (Wiburg, 1991). Yet, since
1995 the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE)
Standards, Procedures, and Policies for the Accreditation of Professional Education
Units require that teacher education faculty be knowledgeable about current
practice related to the use of computers and technology and integrate them in their
teaching and scholarship (NCATE, 1995, p. 24).
Some educators warn that we should proceed with caution when it comes to
computer use in the science classroom and consider several critical questions (Wilcox
& Jensen, 1997, pp. 258). Does computer use inhibit students acquisition of
scientific literacy? How can students use computers productively in their scientific
inquiry? Researchers and other interested parties seek to know what underlying
learning philosophies and models guide the use of technology in education (Willis
& Mehlinger, 1996). For example, some view the use of computers in elementary
classrooms as fools golda cost-effective, quick fix to educational problems
proposed by politicians and administrators that forces
children to hurry up and become skilled little technicians, experts in
accessing other peoples answers to narrow, technical questions and
manipulating machine-generated images. [Technology] interrupts the
creative process, the basic science, of childhood itself (Alliance for
Childhood, 2001, p. 3).
In addition, researchers have asked if various social groups (e.g., males, females,
and students from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds) respond differently to
the use of computers both inside and outside of the classroom (AAUW, 2000; Lisi
& Cannon, 1999; Sacks, Bellisimo, & Mergendoller, 1993-94; Young, 1999; Wilcox
& Jensen, 1997). Questions include: What degrees of access and skills do different
groups have and why? What attitudes do these groups hold about computer use? In
what ways do they implement computer technology and how might this change if
classroom instruction was altered?
So, in sum, it is vital that, as we consider the implementation of computer
technology in science classrooms, we also critically reflect on what best practice
looks like as we seek to foster student learning and science participation.
The call within current science educational reforms and the status of the
incorporation of technology in current teaching practices in teacher education
programs and public school classrooms warrant an examination of not only the

306

KATHLEEN S. DAVIS & CHRISTY J. FALBA

outcomes of such teaching approaches but also the obstacles and pathways to the
implementation of such innovative practice. Though educational reformers and
researchers discuss the integration of educational technology in science classrooms
as a means of effective learning and teaching (Berger, Lu, Belzer, & Voss, l994), few
empirical researchers explicitly investigate the systemic issues that support or impede
such reform.
In this paper, we provide a broad view of the factors that influenced the
professional development of teacher educators at one institution and the integration
of technology in its teacher preparation program. We also provide the readers with
a micro-view of this process as we examine the integration of technology in a
portion of this settingan elementary science methods class. Through our research,
we address the following questions: What factors influence the integration of
computer technology in a teacher preparation programin particular, an elementary
science methods class? What do the efforts of one faculty member in a college of
education to integrate technology into undergraduate teacher education look like?
In what ways does the integration of computer technology in an elementary science
methods class facilitate preservice teachers learning of science and science practices
and influence their beliefs about the use of technology in their learning and in their
classroom instruction?
Methods
Study Site and Participants
In order to best answer the above stated research questions, this paper draws
from two separate yet related studies that took place within a teacher education
preparation program in a College of Education (COE) at Western State University
(WSU)2, a large, urban university in the western United States. The participants in
one study included teacher education faculty; preservice teachers were the
informants in the other.
College. Eight teacher education faculty members were included in a
descriptive case study (Falba, 1998). Six of these participants were selected from
the population of COE faculty who taught required courses in the undergraduate
teacher preparation programs during the same semester. Stratified random sampling
was used to select two participants from each career level: full professor, associate
professor, assistant professor, and doctoral students (who were viewed as emerging
professors). Of the eight university faculty participants, 50% were female and 50%
were male.
Purposeful sampling (McMillan & Schumacher, 1997) was employed to select
two of these participantsa full professor, who taught classroom management, and
an assistant professor, Kathleen Davis, who taught a science methods course. They
were collaborating on a new teaching venture to team-teach their courses with
plans to include a technology component. Neither had previous experience with
using computer-based technology in their teaching.
Science methods class. Participants in the second study were elementary

ORCHESTRATING SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

307

preservice teachers enrolled in one of four elementary science methods classes that
met over the course of one academic year. Of the 101 preservice teachers who
volunteered to be part of the study, 94 were female and 7 were male. The ethnic
distribution was 77% Caucasian American, 9.5% Hispanic/Latino American, 4%
African American, 2.7% Asian American, and 6.8% other ethnic backgrounds.
Graduates of the program typically accept positions with one of the largest, fastestgrowing, urban school systems in the country where ethnic minority students make
up 34.9% of the student body.
Data Collected
College. Data collection included a combination of surveys, interviews,
observation, and document analysis (Janesick, 1994). A technology survey
distributed to 146 College of Education tenured/tenure-track and affiliate faculty
provided baseline data concerning faculty use of computer-based technology.
The number of completed surveys returned was 87 for an overall return rate of
59.6%.
Early in the semester, an initial semi-structured interview (Borg & Gall, 1989)
was conducted with each of the eight faculty participants in the study. This
interview was designed to elicit information about teaching experience, personal
background with technology, and perceptions of the COE culture of teaching. A
second semi-structured interview was conducted near the end of the semester as an
exit interview to gather additional information related to technology use during
the semester, the influence of the COE culture of teaching on technology use, and
the perceived importance of technology in teacher education. Interviews were
recorded and the text transcribed verbatim.
Two types of observations were employed in this studydirect observation
and participant-observation (Yin, 1994). Direct observation provided data
regarding participant and student use of technology during specific class sessions.
Participant-observation allowed the researcher, Christy Falba to: (a) work one-onone with all eight faculty participants and provide professional development as
they learned new software programs, (b) conduct hands-on computer sessions as a
guest lecturer, and (c) take part in faculty interest group and college meetings.
Observation data were recorded in the form of field notes.
Documents were examined to furnish details and confirm data from other
sources (Yin, 1994). Agendas and minutes of faculty interest group meetings,
department meetings, and COE meetings were collected as well as course syllabi.
Other documents of interest included matrices used in the planning process for
systematic technology integration (Handler & Strudler, 1997), and various items
created by participants (i.e., a sign-up sheet for student use of a digital camera). Email correspondence was used as data when it pertained to use of computer-based
technology. Some of the participants sent e-mail messages to the researcher with
specific comments and reflections about technology. Occasionally these e-mail
messages were prompted by researcher questions, but most often they were
voluntary.

308

KATHLEEN S. DAVIS & CHRISTY J. FALBA

Science methods class. Data for this study were collected in the form of
introductory surveys, field notes, student work (i.e., journals and reflections, studentconstructed computer-generated slide show presentations, final course portfolios),
and other documents.
Introductory surveys were designed to elicit from students information about
their background and experiences with science and technology, their beliefs and
attitudes about learning science and teaching science to elementary children, and
their beliefs about their knowledge and skills w/regards to computer technology.
Student reflections, journals, computer-generated slide shows, and other
assignments completed by students provided data regarding their beliefs and
attitudes about using technology in their science learning, their experiences using
technology during the methods course, and their beliefs and attitudes about
integrating technology in their teaching practice. Student slide show presentations
provided evidence of students knowledge of content and the process of inquiry
and their use of various kinds of software and programs (i.e., spreadsheets, graphs,
digital cameras, presentation software).
Davis, instructor for the course and first author, observed students during their
final project presentations and recorded detailed field notes. This data provided
additional information regarding students knowledge and skills regarding science
and technology.
Analysis
Multiple data sources including surveys, interviews, observations, documents,
and e-mail provided a means of triangulation (Merriam, 1988). Data were analyzed
using case study methods (Yin, 1989) and Spradleys (1979, 1980) domain,
taxonomic, and componential analysis. Thus, the critical patterns and themes
outlined below were generated by the data. Interviews, observational data, and
student products were coded into categories based on these patterns and themes.
Member checking, defined by Stake (1995) as presenting draft materials to
participants for confirmation and feedback, was used to give college faculty the
opportunity to comment on selected portions of interview transcripts and drafts of
the writing. The analysis includes particular description in the form of direct quotes,
general description in the form of taxonomies and diagrams, and interpretive
commentary to provide explanation and connection within the analysis (Erickson,
l986).
Results
Though carried out separately, these two studies come together to document
the integration of technology in one teacher education program. Importantly, this
paper provides a broad view of the perspectives of teacher education faculty towards
the use of technology in their teaching and the factors that supported and impeded
such activity. In addition, this paper paints a picture of what technology integration
looked like when incorporated as a teaching/learning tool in a science methods

ORCHESTRATING SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

309

classroom. In these two studies, similar themes emerged which can be used to
inform the design of teacher preparation programs and the work of the teacher
educators within them.
The Broad View: A College of Education
Faculty estimates of their knowledge about various computer-based
technologies (i.e., word processing, computer spreadsheets, statistical computing,
e-mail, educational software, presentation software, Internet/World Wide Web, and
multimedia) were only slightly higher than their reported skill with using those
technologies. Faculty rated their knowledge and skill levels highest with word
processing and e-mail, and indicated those two technologies were used most
frequently in preparing for class. However, the frequency of use of word processing
or e-mail in teaching class was lower. Means for each of the other technologies
reflected little use in teaching.
Although survey data indicated infrequent use of technology in teaching, the
detailed picture revealed by case study data showed participants efforts to integrate
technology ranged from little or no use of technology in their teaching to extensive
use.
Inhibiting Factors
Lack of knowledge, time, and equipment access were factors most frequently
mentioned by participants in regard to factors that inhibited use of technology in
teaching. A common concern was lack of technology knowledge and a lack of
understanding on what the possibilities are. The science methods instructor
described the time factor both in terms of her personal time investment in trying to
learn new programs and in terms of feeling time constraints relative to student use
of technology in classes.
Equipment availability was mentioned by four of the eight case study
participants as a factor that inhibited use of technology. Two of them spoke of
equipment availability both as a factor that facilitated and as a factor that inhibited
technology use. They were committed to making technology an integral part of
their courses and although they acknowledged the availability of equipment in the
COE, they realized they wanted more. Their vision of technology integrated throughout
their courses was outgrowing the reality of sharing equipment and the logistics of
using a small computer lab of 15 computers with a class of approximately 40 students.
Only one participant indicated that no factors inhibited his use of technology.
Facilitating Factors
The three factors most frequently mentioned by the participants as influencing
technology use in teaching were support and interest, equipment access, and
commitment. Support and interest took a variety of forms. For example, one of the
case study participants noted that in planning for technology use with a colleague,

310

KATHLEEN S. DAVIS & CHRISTY J. FALBA

they really sort of encouraged one another. Colleagues often provided informal
assistance, and the researcher frequently observed interactions of that type. On one
such occasion, a faculty member who noticed that a colleague accessed his e-mail
through Netscape instead of through Pine3 asked him for help in setting up his email the same way.
In addition to technical assistance, interest and encouragement were important
in facilitating technology use. Some references to support were directly related to
the involvement of the researcher such as I didnt do much, but Im not sure I
would have done that had it not been for your presence and your encouragement.
Similarly, another case study participant remarked that theres got to be nurturance
and interest taken.
Equipment access was mentioned by five of the eight case study participants,
often in conjunction with people support. Comments from two summarized the
importance of equipment and technical expertise:
The fact that we can take the whole class down to the computer room,
and let them have some hands-on time with the Web certainly facilitated
it [technology use]. And without that Im not sure where we would have
been... So the lab itself and your willingness to help out with that
facilitated it.
When you make it too cumbersome, then you know, its really hard to
incorporate the technology. So the equipment was available, the room
was available, you made yourself available, and [my graduate assistant],
and then the teaming.
Technology as a Focus
For some faculty participants, integrating technology became a focus. Two
themes that emerged when examining data were professional self-esteem and
commitment to using technology. These factors were instrumental in the decision
by individual faculty members to integrate technology into courses. Interview
quotes such as the following were typical of the case study participants using
technology in their classes and were documented through observations:
Im learning along with them, the technology. Ive been very clear that
this is something that Im modelingthe import of learningand that if
I can take the risk in teaching in a university course and learning along
with students, then they certainly can when theyre working with eightyear-olds or ten-year-olds.
Im struggling to figure it out like they are. Im doing, Im with them, and
Im OK with that. Im not so sure how OK they are with that, but Im OK
with that... I went into teaching because I like to learn, and being a
teacher in a classroom is a good place to learn, often with your students.

ORCHESTRATING SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

311

In this study, commitment was a key factor influencing use of technology in

teaching. Commitment essentially took the form of determination to include
technology in courses. Participants most aggressively attempting to integrate
technology were not necessarily those who had the expertise, but rather those who
had a commitment to using it. Comments from the exit interviews of two case study
participants serve to illustrate commitment: I will continue because I think its a
good thing and Once I started using it, I didnt really want to go back to anything
else. One faculty member stated, We must, as leaders of those who are preparing
teachers who will be working with children in the schools, be prepared to use
technology with our students.
Use of Technology in Teaching
Through analysis of the interviews and observations with college faculty in
the case studies, four categories emerged that can be used to describe the manner in
which technology was used in participants courses. These categories are not
mutually exclusive.
1. Technology as an Add-on reflected perceptions of faculty in courses where
use was introduced or discussed, but not integrated into course goals or assignments.
2. Technology as a Communication Medium included use of technology
primarily as a delivery system such as using presentation software for lectures or for
communicating with students via e-mail.
3. Technology as a Resource focused on facilitating student use of the World
Wide Web and other computer-based resources while making explicit connections
to course goals or assignments. Technology as a Communication Medium was
included within this category.
4. Technology as a Teaching/Learning Tool included efforts to model computerbased technology in teaching as well as to involve students in using technology for
course requirements. Emphasis was on technology use both for learning and for
teaching. Technology as a Resource and Technology as a Communication Medium
were included as well (Falba, 1998).
While examples of all of these categories are reported in detail elsewhere
(Falba, 1998), one case study provided a detailed view of technology as a teaching/
learning tool. It was with this framework, that that the science teacher educator
implemented the use of technology within her methods classroom. We report this
below. We describe what that technology integration looked like, what fostered the
faculty members use of technology, and what preservice teachers learned as a
result of their technology use.
The Micro-View: The Elementary Science Methods ClassOne Case Study
The instructor. The preservice science methods instructor, Davis, integrated
technology as a teaching/learning tool with emphasis on authentic uses of
technology which she defined as uses of technology closely linked with subject
area content and classroom experiences. Each of the targeted technologies was

312

KATHLEEN S. DAVIS & CHRISTY J. FALBA

purposely woven into course experiences with support provided by Christy Falba
and another graduate assistant who had educational technology expertise. Kathleen
discussed with her students issues related to use of educational technology as well
as technical expertise. Topics such as cooperative grouping and classroom
management were included.
At times during the semester, Kathleen commented on the difficulty of
integrating technology into the teaching methods course. Its hard because I dont
know what Im doing [and] I do know some of what Im doing. Its all so new. She
reserved the multimedia cart for the entire semester, determined to include
meaningful technology experiences in the class. With no background in using
computer-based technology in teaching, she was trying to learn software programs
and use them in class almost simultaneously. For example, Inspiration (1995), a
brainstorming and concept-mapping program was used early in the semester to
model the use of technology for facilitating group work and eliciting student ideas.
The instructor encouraged students to operate the software and to take control
of the mouse and keyboard during classroom demonstrations of technology. On
one occasion, when Falba was observing in the class, a multimedia encyclopedia
CD-ROM reference source was incorporated into instruction as questions arose
from class discussion. This use of the multimedia occurred naturally and effectively
modeled how it could be done in a classroom.
The project. For the science methods instructor, commitment to integrating
technology was aligned with a view of technology use as a strategy for teaching
and learninga means with which to engage students in researching, creating, and
synthesizing ideas. This view is illustrated by the following interview comment:
My thinking is, OK, whats another way we can get this or how can we
solve the problem? How can we make it better? You know, what will bring
our understanding, our ideas together in the most efficient way or the
way were going to learn the most? I dont know. I think its just kind of
consistent. I dont think its like anything really, because its technology.
Its just another way.
During the science methods course, preservice teachers were engaged in a
long-term study where they investigated factors important to plant growth using
Wisconsin Fast Plants4. The purpose of this project was to facilitate preservice
teachers learning of science practices and effective pedagogy through their own
meaningful scientific inquiry. As students engaged in their investigations as learners,
they also explored the feasibility of using such approaches with their students.
Teams, each comprised of three preservice teachers, decided on a question to
explore regarding plant growth; designed an investigation to help them answer
their question; collected and recorded data on spreadsheets, with digital cameras,
and in journals; and problem-solved and redesigned investigations as needed. At
the end of the semester, investigation teams presented their results and findings to
their peers using various presentation software packages (e.g., ClarisWorks5,
HyperStudio6, KidPix Studio7, and PowerPoint8).

ORCHESTRATING SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

313

During the semester, the instructor modeled the use of PowerPoint, HyperStudio,
digital cameras, and the World Wide Web (WWW) as part of her classroom instruction.
For example, the instructor delivered a lecture using PowerPoint (1994); she
presented the information and demonstrated the characteristics of the software at
the same time. Though direct instruction was not her preferred style of teaching,
she felt it was important to show how technology could be used to facilitate that
method. She also created a HyperStudio stack with the assistance of Falba to learn
to work with the software and to provide an example for the class of how they might
present their project design and findings.
Several class meetings were set aside to introduce/review how spreadsheets
using ClarisWorks could be used to record investigation data and construct graphs,
to assist teams as they designed their own spreadsheets, and to allow students to
explore the PowerPoint, HyperStudio, and KidPix programs that might be unfamiliar
to them.
During the semester, the instructor taught a hands-on session on researching
information through the World Wide Web. A sense of support was provided through
Falbas presence during the session, but the instructor appeared confident as she
modeled the basics of moving around the World Wide Web. Students were made
aware that information they found on the Web pages could be used in their Fast
Plant project analysis and in their presentation of findings.
As students worked with the technology throughout their project, they were
provided with assistance from the instructor, Falba, and one other graduate student
who was well versed in computer technology.
Learning science and science processes. Students use of technology within
the Fast Plants project aided them in their engagement in inquiry and use of the
process skills of science as outlined by the National Science Education Standards
(NRC, 1996). In particular, the use of technology enabled students to: (a) extend
their senses and gather data; (b) record, analyze, and interpret data; (c) use data to
construct reasonable explanations; (d) think critically and logically; and (e)
communicate their investigations and explanations (see Table 1).
The computer presentations highlighted how students used photographs taken
with digital and regular cameras to capture changes in their plants throughout their
investigations, document their observations over the course of the project, and
illustrate their experimental designs. Student teams later inserted their photographs
in their slide show presentations (see Table 2).
Student presentations documented their employment of spreadsheets to record
their data and graphs to analyze and communicate their findings (see Table 2).
Students used charts and bar and line graphs to document such things as changes in
plant height over time and the number of buds, flowers, and seeds of each plant
each week. Students then compared the data of plants growing under similar and
different conditions. Using graphs in these ways enabled students to think critically
and come to new understandings about factors that influenced plant growth.
The computer-generated presentations also brought to the forefront how the
use of technology enabled students to communicate their scientific activity and
understandings. Students used the technology to create electronic journals in which

KATHLEEN S. DAVIS & CHRISTY J. FALBA

314

Table 1
Demonstrated Inquiry Skills by Wisconsin Fast Plant Teams During Investigation Presentations (Fall & Spring 1997)

Identify questions that can be answered

through scientific investigations

Pr

Pr

Pr

Pr

Pr

1S 2S 3S 4S 5S 6S 1F 2F 3F 4F 5F 6F 7F 8F 9F 10F 11F

Plan and conduct a simple investigation

Inquiry Descriptor/Team
Ask a question about objects, organisms,
and events in the environment

Design and conduct a scientific investigation

Pr

Pr

Pr

Pr

Pr

Pr

Pr

Pr

Employ simple equipment and tools to

gather data and extend the senses
Use appropriate tools and techniques to
gather, analyze, and interpret data
Use technology and math to improve
investigations and communications

X
Pr

X
X

Pr
Pr

Pr

Pr

Pr

Use data to construct a reasonable explanation

Pr

Pr

Communicate investigations

Communicate explanations

X
X

Pr
X

Think critically and logically to make the

relationships between evidence & explanations
Recognize and analyze alternative
explanations and predictions

Note. X indicates descriptor included in slide show. Pr indicates descriptor included in discussion during presentation

315
ORCHESTRATING SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

1S
P
C

2S
P
C

X
X
X

3S
C

X
X
X
Pr

4S
H
C

5S
P

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
Pr

6S
H
C

X
X
X
X

Pr

1F
H
K
C
X
X
X
X
X
X

2F
P
C

3F
H
C

4F
K
C

X
X
Pr
X

X
X

X
X

Pr

X
X
X

Pr

X
Pr

X
X
X
X

Table 2
Means of Communicating Findings: Wisconsin Fast Plant Teams (Fall & Spring 1997)
Method/Team
HyperStudio, PowerPoint,
KidPix, ClarisWorks
X

Journal entries
Charts
Graphs
Drawings
Photographs
Graphics
Poems/Nursery Rhymes
Humor
Sounds
Songs
Stories
Explanations for Young Children
Personal Anecdotes
Artifacts
Skits
WWW
Interviews

5F
P
C

X
X

Pr
X

8F
H
C

9F 10F 11F
P
P K
C

X
X

7F
H
C

6F
H
C

X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X

Pr

X
X

Pr

Note. X indicates descriptor included in slide show. Pr indicates descriptor included in discussion during presentation.
P indicates PowerPoint; C indicates ClarisWorks; H indicates HyperStudio; K indicates Kid Pix.

316

KATHLEEN S. DAVIS & CHRISTY J. FALBA

they described their investigative processes: the questions they asked, their
predictions, their experimental plan and design, the ways in which they went about
conducting their investigations, and their observations. Within their computer slide
shows, students described problems they encountered during the investigation
process, new questions that emerged, and suggestions they had for future
explorations and experimental designs.
Preservice teachers found that computer technology helped them to organize
and analyze their data and present their findings to their peers in a clear, systematic,
creative, and professional way. For example, one student stated:
Putting our results on HyperStudio helped us to synthesize and summarize
what we had observed and learned from the project. Technology is a
great way to share a presentation in a creative and organized way.
Students also pointed out that the use of technology allowed for the inclusion
of more details and clear visuals that made the presentations informative. The
presentations were much more detailed...than they would have been without the
use of the computer, one student noted.
Ways of communicating. The various kinds of presentation software offered
teams of students a wide variety of ways to report their science activity and afforded
individuals opportunities to incorporate diversity, creativity, and individuality in
the science context. Students saw the use of computer technology within the course
as opening new doors and providing new perspectives regarding new and
varied ways of communicating.
Fast Plant teams incorporated a multiplicity of methods into their technology
presentations to effectively communicate their investigation findings. Students
used several kinds of software (e.g., PowerPoint, HyperStudio, KidPix, and
ClarisWorks) and sometimes incorporated two or more within one presentation (see
Table 2). Data were reported in the form of journal entries, drawings (scanned from
journals and hand-drawn with the use of computer software), computer-generated
graphics, and photographs (scanned or taken with digital cameras). Measurements
recorded on spreadsheets were transformed into colorful graphs. Sites on the WWW
were opened to provide access to experts and additional information. During the
presentations during class, teams talked from their slide shows to relate key
information about their studies.
Students used many alternative approaches to express their scientific
understandings as part of their presentations. Student teams incorporated stories,
narratives written for young children, humorous writings, songs, music, and poems
in their technology presentations to aid them in conveying their investigations,
observations, and understandings. Teams often showed their peers their actual
plantings to help explain the results of their inquiry.
As one of the benefits of using technology in their presentations, students
highlighted the fact that they were able to show and present information in different
ways and be creative in their communications with others. In the final project
reflection students stated:

ORCHESTRATING SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

317

[Using technology] allowed you to present information in a different

way.
[Using technology] made it easier for everyone to demonstrate [his or
her] strengths. It allowed students to show off their creative thinking
and ideas.
The wide variety of [options] available was awesome. Sometimes to the
point where one could not make up ones mind.
Using technology also allowed students to communicate thoughts and ideas
in a way other than verbalizing them directly in front of the class. As one student
pointed out in the final project reflection, [Using technology] gives students a
chance to express themselves that normally do not speak out in class. Another
student stated in her course portfolio:
As you may have noticed, I do not talk a lot in class even though for the
most part I have great ideas and the right answers. I was not called on to
talk in class in high school or any other grade. I have become almost
conditioned not to talk....I think that is the reason I enjoyed the technology
lesson, I could express myself without actually talking.
She goes on in her essay to stress how important it is to allow students to
express themselves in a variety of ways such as creative writings, skits, and music.
Constraints to technology use. Though many students viewed the integration
of computer technology as a means of diversifying and clarifying science talk,
some noted the difficulties they encountered due to their lack of expertise with
computers and the programs used, the short amount of time provided to learn about
the software and, concomitantly, construct their presentations. In project reflections,
some students stated:
It was a little intimidating for those who have not taken the computer
class to incorporate computer technology in the presentation.
Trying to learn a new type of computer program was difficult in the
amount of class time given.
It was a little difficult if you had not taken the computer class, yet. That
class was not a prerequisite.
Im glad that we used technology. However, I have some experience with
it. If I hadnt, it would have been frustrating.
As part of the teacher preparation program, students were required to take a
survey course in computer technology which introduced them to word processing,

318

KATHLEEN S. DAVIS & CHRISTY J. FALBA

use of the Internet, instructional materials, and the use of presentation software.
Though this course was not a prerequisite for the science methods course, survey
data from the fall courses indicated that 92.5% of the students had taken the
introductory computer course and 24.3% of the students had taken two or more
courses in computer technology. (Data were not available for the spring semester.)
Only 7.4% of the students reported that they had not taken any computer courses as
undergraduates. Despite the large numbers of students who reported taking
technology coursework, more than 60% of students taking the science methods
class rated their familiarity with and use of technology (i.e., science software,
Internet) at the beginning of the semester as fair to weak. Students enrolled in the
science methods course during the spring semester reported similar skill levels. So,
though most students had some introductory experience with the programs used in
the science methods course, it is clear that many did not come away from their
coursework knowledgeable and comfortable with their computer abilities. Thus,
the lack of computer ability and/or confidence in their skill level coupled with
inadequate learning time may have been a limiting factor for some students when
it came to sharing their project design and findings with computer technology.
Additionally, students with more computer expertise may have had a greater
voice in what was communicated in the final presentations. For example, one student
reported:
The benefits were good if everyone in the group had experience with
HyperStudio or the other. If only one person was familiar with the program,
that person did all the computer worknot really fair.
As students reported the roles that they undertook within their cooperative teams,
two scenarios seemed prevalent with regard to the preparations of their presentations.
A few teams divided up the work to be done based on their areas of expertise; this often
led to those who had computer expertise to do most of that part of the project.
However, most students noted that team members shared project tasks equally,
including the construction of the computer presentations. If some students lacked
computer expertise, they found that their more knowledgeable teammates served as
teachers of technology. For example, one student stated, [We] contributed and shared
our strengths and talents to put together a finished product. I learned a lot about using
the computer from other members of my group. Another student explained that her
teammates showed me ways of using technology more effectively...[and] so much
more that I didnt think could be possible. Another related:
[We] presented our Wisconsin Fast Plants using a PowerPoint program,
a program I am not proficient in. In our Fast Plant groups, I learned how
to use a scanner, how to use a digital camera, and how to set up slides. I
felt very pleased not only with the presentations, but also with what I
had learned.
Importantly, students gleaned new skills with computer technologies as a result

ORCHESTRATING SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

319

of this project. However, it is important to note that those who came to the project with
little knowledge and/or confidence with the various computer programs being used in
the project needed to learn a different language in order to communicate their
science experiences and learning. Lack of time and support appear to have been
limiting factors as students used technology during the course of the project.
Links to classroom practice. The instructor considered the use of technology
successful in her class and felt that students made the connection to use in teaching.
She stated:
It was tied so much to what we did in class. So I could really see the direct
application and more from them seeing also direct application to their
classroom teaching. Although they didnt take it that far this semester, I
think that they could see how they could use it with their students in their
classes.
In their end-of-the-project reflection, several students noted how the integration
of computer technology helped them see how they might do the same with their
students. For example, one student noted: Incorporating technology allowed us
to learn about how our students might be able to use HyperStudio in their own
investigation.
In her end-of-the-semester portfolio, one student stated:
There was so much creativity (in the presentations) and it really painted
a great picture of how to use technology in a classroom. The computer is
a great teaching tool that is virtually endless in its capabilities. It can
create charts and graphs, students can do presentations...
Another student pointed out how the use of computer technology can open
doors to new ways of communicating:
The integration of technology is very important in the classroom. By
giving students different outlets to discover and use, the teacher allows
students to be more creative and find different ways to accomplish goals.
I think that students should be introduced to different ways of
communicating....I think that technology allow[s] them to do this and
helps them be more apt to try new ways of communicating.
Though this study did not follow preservice teachers into their classrooms, a
few noted in their final portfolios how they had integrated technology into their
practice. One reported:
I taught a lesson on bugs called Buggy Diner and the students used
the encyclopedia CDROM to look up different information on garden
bugs....This gave the students a chance to use the computer because
many of my students do not have access to computers. The World Wide

320

KATHLEEN S. DAVIS & CHRISTY J. FALBA

Web and America Online are great resources to introduce to our
classroom.

During her end-of-the-semester portfolio presentation, another preservice

teacher presented various kinds of computer software that she had used with her
students. As she demonstrated a CDROM to the science methods class, she noted
how the software was interactive. The children in her classroom were studying
about trees from different regions of the world, and each day her students could
make decisions about where they wanted to go.
During their portfolio presentations, two other students used a HyperStudio
presentation to share with their peers a unit of study on crickets they had taught to
their students. Included in the slide show were photos of their students engaged in
their cricket investigations. In addition, the preservice teachers shared how they
thought students might use HyperStudio to create books and/or journals to present
in their science class what they had learned about crickets.
Though some novice teachers perceived the integration of science and
technology as an effective means of learning and teaching, others, like some of the
teacher education faculty, continued to view them as separate and distinct entities.
For example, in the course evaluation, one student commented, The integration of
subject areas (computers) is commendable but [I] have [had] those classes and I felt
that I was being over-burdened with other subject areas... Another stated, We
already have classes dedicated ...to the use of computers so Dr. Davis should not
feel it is her responsibility to cover these areas.
Discussion
The data presented above provide an image of what the integration of computer
technology into undergraduate teacher education might look like. In addition,
several key issues emerged in light of these studies to help us further contemplate
endeavors of this nature and the ways they contribute to the teaching of science
and science education. These include:
1. Technology can be a tool that enables teachers to communicate what they
know effectively and creatively.
2. The integration of computer technology provides those who are often
marginalized or excluded from science talk and computer usage, with a pathway to
legitimate activity.
3. The disparate views of technology as an add-on versus a critical
toolprovide science teacher educators some impetus to further examine the
view teachers have of science. Such perceptions motivate the authors to examine
how the integration of technology in instruction can provide a more authentic
context for science activity and learning and enable both teachers and their students
to see a more meaningful role for themselves and their students in daily science
activity.
4. Lastly, professional development and support appear to be critical elements
to implementing change and sustaining reform practices.

ORCHESTRATING SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

321

We discuss each of these points below and their relevance to science teacher education.
Talking Science in Multiple Ways with Technology
One compelling result of this project was the science discourse of preservice
teachers. The data above document how technology served to provide them multiple
and diverse ways to share science activity and understanding. As a result, their
science talk was organized, flowing, descriptive, and creative.
In this study, the use of technology was key to novice teachers science learning.
Their use of computer technology aided them in learning the process skills of
scientific inquiry including the collection, recording, organization, and analysis
of data and communication of findings. Throughout this study, preservice teachers
used multiple and creative methods to communicate their science activity and
understandings to others. Preservice teachers used computer technology to present
their findings to their peers in a clear, systematic, creative, and professional way.
The teachers found that using various kinds of software and writing genres enabled
them to better communicate what they had learned. Their use of computer
technology within the course opened new doors and provided them new
perspectives regarding new and varied ways of communicating their
understandings to others and provided them with new access to science talk.
The ways in which computer technology enhanced students ability to
communicate their science is valuable in light of recent discussions of scientific
discourse. Some researchers have noted how aspects of traditionally accepted
scientific discourse can be exclusive and limiting (Davis, 2001; Hildebrand, 1998;
Lemke, 1990). First of all, the competitive and aggressive nature of scientific
discourse can marginalize or exclude some. In one study (Davis, 2001), women
working in the sciences described the discourse in the science community as not
about sharing ideas, knowledge, and skills and learning from that, but about
posturing and competition where individuals must continuously be aggressive,
prove themselves, and establish a superior and dominant position. Such discourse
practices tend to silence some who would otherwise share their scientific work. In
addition, others may exclude themselves from discourse settings that competitive
and aggressive. However, in the science methods classroom setting reported here,
the technology provided a new discourse frame that encouraged the sharing of
experiences, information, and knowledge, whether new or established.
As it is, classroom discourse usually revolves around facts and terminology
that are already known by the scientific community which students are expected to
learn and accept (Hildebrand, 1998; Lemke, 1990). Few questions or problems are
drawn from students experiences and little classroom discussion reflects their daily
discourse. The tacit assumption is that access to power in science will occur only
if all students are taught to write [and speak] as the scientific elite [do] (Hildebrand,
1998, p. 350). Hildebrand (1998) describes traditional scientific discourse as
positivist, masculine, hegemonic, and reflective of learning that is received and
reproductive rather than authentic and constructed (p. 349). However, legitimate
science activity includes explaining and justifying understandings, the questions

322

KATHLEEN S. DAVIS & CHRISTY J. FALBA

that guide inquiries, the methods employed, and the conclusions drawn (NRC,
1996). Thus, researchers, working from feminist perspectives, have proposed
inclusive pedagogical approaches (Davis, 1999; Eisenhart & Finkel, 1998;
Hildebrand, 1998; Rouchoudary, Tippins, & Nichols, l995). These methods provide
students with opportunities to: 1) use and integrate the knowledge, skills, and tools
of science and technology as part of relevant inquiry; 2) talk about their science
activity in meaningful ways; and 3) engage in learning that provides multiple and
diverse ways of talking and thinking.
Issues of Equity: Technological Literacy
In light of the common image of females lack of interest and participation in
computer use (AAUW, 2000; Sadker & Sadker, 1994), the overall positive response
to technology by students in the methods class, most of whom were female, is
important to consider. The science methods class described in this study provided
students with a common point of entry to the computer worldthe use of data
bases, graphics, and presentation software. The course provided opportunities to
engage in activities with technologyallowed students to tinkerand promoted
creativity and imagination. This is in contrast to the earlier stated fears by technology
opponents that computer technology would diminish student inventiveness and
problem-solving ability (Alliance for Childhood, 2001).
However, it is important to point out that equity in computer technology
cannot be gauged by the number of females or students of color who send e-mail,
use the Internet, or make PowerPoint presentations (AAUW, 2000). Indeed, equity
means having access to opportunity so that one uses technology actively; is able to
explain and analyze the information that technology makes available; grasps design
concepts; can envision new and unique ways to use technology across a wide range
of questions, problems and subjects; and continues to learn more about new
technologies as they emerge. In this sense, students are more than just technology
users, they are decision-makers and technology producers (AAUW, 2000). So while
the science methods class opened the door to authentic technology use for both the
instructor and the students, there is still much more that needs to be done to meet
these goals within teacher education and in public school classrooms.
TechnologyAdd-on vs. Authentic and Critical Tool
This study points to the range of beliefs about technology integration held by
both teacher educators and preservice teachers. Some clearly saw technology as a
valuable teaching and learning tool. Others viewed technology and the disciplines
as separate and distinct entities. For example, though teacher candidates participated
in expertly prepared lessons where technology was authentically integrated, some
saw no place for computer technology in a science methods course. Three preservice
teachers perceived it as something extra that Dr. Davis should not feelher
responsibility to cover. It is evident that these students did not come away with a
clear understanding of the theoretical or practical reasons behind the instructors

ORCHESTRATING SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

323

decisions to use and model technology integration. Like these beginning teachers,
it appears that some teacher educators did not see the interconnections between
technology and their field.
Though modeling is essential, science teacher educators should not assume
that by simply modeling expertly prepared lessons that integrate technology
and engaging teachers in them that teachers will automatically garner expert
knowledge or use technology in their classrooms (Pederson & Yerrick, 2000, p.
145). Students often do not see the underlying theoretical and practical frameworks
for the choices that science teachers make to inform the hows and whys of
integration (p. 145). Thus, in addition to walking the talk, science teacher
educators must make explicit the goals that underlie course activities. Making the
underpinnings explicit is critical. Furthermore, it is apparent that researchers need
to seek out what sense students and educators make of well-intentioned efforts
to incorporate technology in instruction (Pederson & Yerrick, 2000, p. 145).
There are many science teacher educators who are committed to technology
integration (Pederson & Yerrick, 2000). What underlies this commitment? What does
technology integration, now and in the future, look like in the minds and practices of
those who hold such commitments? The data from this study indicated that holding
deep beliefs in the value of technology as a teaching/learning tool appeared most
important for committed, sustained use of computer technology in teaching. In order
for teacher educators to see technology as more than just an add-on, they needed a
vision of teaching and learning where learners come away with knowledge and skills
for today and the future. What are the practices of everyday life and scientific work?
What are the unresolved problems and issues facing science and society today?
With such a vision, a lived curriculumone that is much more open to the
interests, needs, and voices of todays teachers and studentsis in place (Hurd,
2000). Such a curriculum enables teachers and students to make sense of science in
their daily lives, use technology that they see used around them, and engage in
authentic science practice. In this sense, the nature of the curriculum is active
knowledge in that it brings science into the everyday life of the [learner] and the
real world (Hurd, 2000, p. 55). Science and technology are seen as tools that
enable citizens to investigate and understand the problems of everyday life and to
serve their communities.
In order to teach in ways that are consistent with such beliefs, teachers need to
be skilled in ways of talking, thinking, and interacting with science content
(Anderson & Mitchener, 1994), its practices (Davis, 1999) and technology (Pederson
& Yerrick, 2000). Yet, what knowledge do science teachers have about actual science
activity? Teachers experiences with science have occurred mostly within school
science and such experiences often communicate a false image of science and
science learningthat it is a static discipline comprised of a great wealth of facts,
known only by scientists, that students must learn (Songer & Linn, 1991).
In reality, learning science is an active and dynamic process where the learner
socially constructs knowledge while investigating questions and problems with
the tools and artifacts of the discipline, including technology. However, students
often do not experience these kinds of activities until graduate school. Many

324

KATHLEEN S. DAVIS & CHRISTY J. FALBA

university, undergraduate, science programs consider laboratory activity as

secondary, and useful, primarily, to substantiate the information delivered by lecture
and reading (NSTA, 1998). Therefore, few individualsincluding those with
undergraduate majors and degrees in the sciencesgraduate from college with
knowledge of how the factual information they have gleaned was constructed and
how it is actually used in scientific work. They have little understanding of the
inner workings of the science community and how science is done (Richmond,
1998). In particular, elementary teachers, who are primarily female, have been
especially under-served in science and often come to teaching with little experience
and knowledge of the discipline (Weiss, 1997). Within recent years, researchers
have come to see that much more is needed than an accumulation of a specified
number of credit hours in science to acquire subject mastery and a deep
understanding of the discipline and its practices (Anderson & Mitchener, 1994).
Thus, it is imperative that teachers and science teacher educators have
significant and substantial involvement in laboratory experiences and use of
scientific tools. These include inquiry-based projects that involve teachers in
actively investigating phenomena that can be studied scientifically, much like the
Fast Plant projects undertaken by the teachers in this study. Such instruction would
introduce teachers to the technological resources used by scientists, such as
computer technology, that can expand their science knowledge and their ability to
access further knowledge (NRC, 1996).
Furthermore, as teachers engage in scientific investigation, collaborations with
science experts can substantially contribute to teachers understandings of authentic
scientific work. Such partnerships may aid teachers and teacher educators in better
understanding the role of technology in everyday scientific work and help them
become skilled and knowledgeable about the understandings, activities, and tools
valued within science. It has been shown that teachers and students, given the
opportunity to apprentice with scientists, develop knowledge of scientific practice
(Falk & Drayton, 1997; Richmond, 1999). Teachers and students broaden their
views of scientists and the scientific process, and, importantly, they are better able
to associate themselves with the scientific enterprise. They increase their use of
technical language, grow in their appreciation for the complexity of the research
process, and develop an understanding of the role a scientist and the larger scientific
community play in the generation of scientific ideas.
Support for Integrating Computer Technology in Teacher Education
Importantly, long-term technical, curricular, and emotional support was critical
in order for the university faculty and novice teachers in this study to use technology
successfully. As noted in the data, the accessibility of equipment as well as people
support was needed.
Furthermore, many beginning teachers reported that their actual learning and
teaching experiences involving the use of technology were important in their
consideration of incorporating the authentic use of technology in their own teaching
practice. As a result of their experiences as learners, preservice teachers collected

ORCHESTRATING SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

325

specific examples of how to teach science content authentically with technology

including the use of the Internet, digital cameras, spreadsheets, graphs, and
presentation software.
At WSU, education faculty participants in the study were provided with oneon-one professional development as they learned new software programs. In addition,
Falba provided hands-on computer sessions as a guest lecturer in their courses, thus
modeling the kind of instruction and integration that was hoped for. She and another
graduate student working in computer technology provided classroom support as
students engaged in using software. Furthermore, Falba took part in a faculty interest
group and college meetings where she was able to further model the use of
technology, talk about pedagogical practices, and answer faculty questions.
The paucity of adequate professional development has been described as the
single greatest impediment to teachers use of educational technology (U. S.
Congress Office of Technology Assessment, 1995). Pederson and Yerrick (2000)
contend that in order to teach effectively with technology requires special computer
knowledge and skills, knowledge of technological resources and how to use them,
as well as the ability to think across the disciplines. Thus, the professional
development of teachers and teacher educators seems imperative if they are going
to be better able to integrate technology in their instruction. In a recent study,
Pederson and Yerrick (2000) surveyed science teacher educators from around the
United States about their knowledge and use of technology in classroom instruction.
These science teacher educators indicated high interest in learning more about
how to integrate technology in their instruction, especially with regards to the
collection storage of data, graphing, and problem solving. However, they reported
only moderate knowledge in technology and having very little support and/or
professional development in this area. Interestingly enough,
[d]espite science educators alliance to a field remarkably impacted by
technology, their instructional use, experience and formal training to
use computers for instruction, and desire to improve appear similar to
those reported of most teachers. (p. 144)
Most science teacher educators are self-taught and although it is commendable
that individuals take it upon themselves to learn new technologies Pederson and
Yerrick register concern over the apparent lack of ongoing education for faculty
members (p. 144). Keeping up to snuff with current technologies is, in and of
itself, a full time job.
In addition, some teachers are uncomfortable with the notion of working, not
only outside of their technological expertise, but also outside of their pedagogical
expertise (National Foundation for the Improvement of Education, 2001). Within a
project-based frame as presented here, students not only use technology, they also
work with more autonomy and explore topics that may draw from many disciplines.
So educators are faced with the additional challenges of enabling students to work
effectively in project-based study (e.g., selecting questions, designing
investigations). Thus, what is needed in professional development is more than a

326

KATHLEEN S. DAVIS & CHRISTY J. FALBA

drive-by approach that focuses on the technical aspects of hardware and software
(AAUW, 2000). Applicable and authentic uses of technology in scientific inquiry
must be made explicit.
Conclusion
Educational reform can be a difficult and complex process. Key to incorporating
reform in science classrooms is knowledge of the many factors that support teacher
learning and the obstacles that inhibit that process. The integration of technology
in science teaching and learning can support learners, both teachers and their
students, as they collect, record, organize and analyze science data. Computer
technology can provide them multiple ways to meaningfully and creatively talk
about their science. Integrating technology into science instruction can provide
teachers with a new view of what authentic science activity embodies.
Key to any discussion of what successful science teacher preparation must
embody is what teachers will employ in their classrooms with children as a result of
such education. Importantly, as novice science teachers come away from teacher
education courses with not only the understandings and skills related to technology,
but also explicit understanding of the critical role technology plays in science
activity, it is reasonable to suggest that they are more likely to provide their students
with such experiences as well. Yet, an ongoing commitment of professional
development and technological support will be key to this venture.
References
Alliance for Childhood (2001). Fools gold: A critical look at computers in
childhood. on Cue: Journal of the Massachusetts Computer Using Educators, 11
(1), pp. 1-3, 38.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989). Science for all
Americans: A project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and
technology. Washington, D.C.: AAAS.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (l993). Benchmarks for
scientific literacy: Project 206l. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association of University Women (2000). Tech-savvy: Educating
girls in the new computer age. Washington: American Association of University
Women.
Anderson, R. D. & Mitchener, C. P. (1994). Research on science teacher
education. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and
learning: A project of the National Science Teachers Association (pp. 3-44). New
York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Berger, C. F., Lu, C. R., Belzer, S. J., & Voss, B. E. (l994). Research on the uses
of technology in science education. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.) Handbook of research on
science teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Borg, W. R. & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational research: An introduction (5th
Edition). New York: Longman.

ORCHESTRATING SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

327

Borko, H. & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In R. C. Calfee and D.

Berliner (Eds.), Handbook on educational psychology (pp. 673-708). New York:
Macmillan Publishing Company.
Carr, L.L., Novak, D.I., & Berger, C.F. (1992). Integrating technology into
preservice education: Determining the necessary resources. Journal of Computing
in Teacher Education, 9(1), 20-24.
Davis, K. S. (1999). Why science? Women scientists and their pathways along
the road less traveled. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering,
5 (2), 129-153.
Davis, K. S. (2001). Peripheral and subversive: Women making connections,
challenging the boundaries, and defining the limits of the science community.
Science Education, 85 (4), 368-409.
Eisenhart, M. A. & Finkel, E. (1998). Womens science: Learning and
succeeding from the Margins. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Erickson, F. (l986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock
(Ed.) The handbook of research on teaching (3rd Edition) (pp. 119-161). New
York, Macmillan.
Falba, C. J. (1998). Technology use by a college of education faculty and
factors influencing integration of technology in an undergraduate teacher
preparation program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Las Vegas: University
of Nevada Las Vegas.
Falk, J. & Drayton, B. (1997). Dynamics of the relationships between science
teachers and scientists in an innovative mentorship, collaboration. Paper presented
at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Handler, M. G. & Strudler, N. (1997). The ISTE foundation standards: Issues of
implementation. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 13(2), 16-23.
Hurd, P. D. (2000). Transforming middle school science education. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Hildebrand, G. M. (1998). Disrupting hegemonic writing practices in school
science: Contesting the right way to write. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
35 (4), 345-362.
International Society for Technology in Education (2002). National
Educational Technology Standards for TeachersPreparing Teachers to Use
Technology.
Janesick, V. J. (1994). The dance of qualitative research design: Metaphor,
methodolatry, and meaning. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (pp. 209-219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Krajcik, J. S., Czerniak, C. M., & Berger, C. (1999). Teaching children science:
A project-based approach. Boston: McGraw-Hill College.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Lisi, A. W. & Cannon, G. (1999). Gender and social-strata equity differences
in attitudes and out of school use of computers of eleventh grade students. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Montreal.

328

KATHLEEN S. DAVIS & CHRISTY J. FALBA

Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing
professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
McMillan, J. H. & Schumacher, S. (1997). Research in education: A conceptual
introduction (4th Edition). New York: Longman.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative
approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st
Century (2000). Before its too late: A report to the nation. Jessup, MD: U. S.
Department of Education, Education Publications Center.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (1995). Standards,
procedures, and policies for the accreditation of professional education units.
Washington, DC: NCATE.
National Foundation for the Improvement of Education (2000). Project-based
learning and information technologies. on Cue: Journal of the Massachusetts
Computer Using Educators, 11 (1), pp. 5-6, 28-38.
National Research Council. (1996). The national science education standards.
Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
National Science Teachers Association (1998). Standards for Science Teacher
Preparation: Content. NSTA.
Pederson, J. E. & Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Technology in science teacher education:
Survey of current uses and desired knowledge among science educators. Journal of
Science Teacher Education 11 (2), pp 131-153.
Richmond, G. (1998). Scientific apprenticeship and the role of public schools:
General education of a better kind. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35,
583-587.
Richmond, G. (1999). Communities as rich resources for development of
apprentices understanding of scientific work. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.
Roychoudhury, A., Tippins, D.J., Nichols, S. E. (l995). Gender-inclusive science
teaching: A feminist-constructivist approach. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 32 (9), 897-924.
Sacks, C. H., Bellisimo, Y., & Mergendoller, J. (1993-94). Attitudes toward
computers and computer use: The issue of gender. Journal of Research on Computing
in Education, 26 (2), 256-269.
Sadker & Sadker (1994). Failing at fairness: How Americas schools cheat
girls. New York: Charles Scribners Sons.
Songer, N. B. & Linn, M. C. (1991). How do students views of science influence
knowledge integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28 (9), 761-784.
Spradley, J. P. (l979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
and Winston.
Spradley, J. P. (l980). Participant observation. New York: Harcourt, Brace,
Jovanovich.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

ORCHESTRATING SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

329

Thomas, L. (1992). NCATE accreditation: Administering the ISTE guidelines.

Educational IRM Quarterly, 2(2), 9-14.
U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment (1995). Teachers and technology:
Making the connection. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Weiss, I. R. (1997). The status of science and mathematics teaching in the
United States: Comparing teacher views and classroom practice to national
standards. NISE Brief 1 (3).
Wiburg, K. (l99l). Teaching teachers about technology. Computers in the
Schools, 8 (1/2/3), 115-129.
Wilcox, K. J. & Jensen, M. S. (1997). Computer use in the science classroom:
Proceed with caution! What educators still need to learn about computer
exploitation. Journal of College Science Teaching 26 (4), pp. 258-264.
Willis, J.W. & Mehlinger, H.D. (1996). Information technology and teacher
education. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp.
978-1029). New York: Macmillan.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd Edition).
(Applied social research methods series; v. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Young, B. J. (1999). Gender differences in student attitudes toward computers.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Montreal.
Notes
1

Learning technologies include computers, software, and various peripherals that

support students learning (Krajcik, Czerniak, & Berger, 1999, p. 53).
2
Pseudonyms are used throughout to maintain confidentiality.
3
Pine, a Program for Internet News & Email was developed by Computing &
Communications at the University of Washington.
4
The Wisconsin Fast Plants Program developed at the University of WisconsinMadison is dedicated to promoting networking between teachers, scientists, and
educators. The program develops instructional materials, offers workshops and
collaborates with other educational initiatives. The programs focus is on Fast
Plants (rapid cycling Brassica rapa), a fast growing widely used plant that is ideal
for use both in the classroom and in the research lab.
5
ClarisWorks is an integrated software package that allows for word processing,
data base, spread sheet, drawing, painting & communications.
6
HyperStudio is a standard classroom desktop and online multimedia, authoring
program for educators and students.
7
Kid Pix Studio is multimedia program that enables students and teachers to
create slide shows with pictures, illustrations, sounds and animation.
8
PowerPoint is a form of computer software that provides a set of tools to construct
professional, slide show presentations.